Whiny fuel economy/EPA story on NBC

I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
inflating tires properly.

They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
NOT MOVING while your engine is running?

Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
faster.

Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE

Thanks for reading my little rant...

Mark wrote:

> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
> inflating tires properly.
>
> They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
> car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
> complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
> NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>
> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
> you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
> was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
> the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
> highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
> consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
> as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
> faster.
>
> Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>
> Thanks for reading my little rant...
>
I saw the stories too. For the most part, most people get below the EPA.
YOu have to remember not all areas of the country are flat, at a
constant temp, or have other conditions that maximize economy.
In Nebraska, i don't think any of my cars have really exceed the
sticker. Usually under. My 96 s10 2.2 does about 17/23 in normal
weather.

Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mark wrote:
> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
> inflating tires properly.
>
> They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
> car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
> complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
> NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>
> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
> you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
> was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
> the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
> highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
> consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
> as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
> faster.
>
> Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>
> Thanks for reading my little rant...
>
Same old story - nobody wants to take responsibility for their own
actions. And the media is quick to ell us It's Not Your Fault - it's
"THEM".

--
- -
Rex Burkheimer
WM Automotive
Fort Worth TX

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:38:08 -0800, Mark wrote:

> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
> inflating tires properly.
>
> They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
> car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
> complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
> NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>
> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
> you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
> was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
> the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
> highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
> consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
> as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
> faster.
>
> Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>
> Thanks for reading my little rant...


The last time prices went up, there was a story on NECN (New England Cable
News) where they were interviewing a guy, at the pump, complaining about
the high cost of gas...while filling up his EXCURSION!!!

If you're gonna cry about it, buy a Prius! What a fool.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:00:23 -0600, Bob Urz wrote:

>
>
> Mark wrote:
>
>> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
>> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
>> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
>> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
>> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
>> inflating tires properly.
>>
>> They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
>> car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
>> complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
>> NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>>
>> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
>> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
>> you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
>> was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
>> the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
>> highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
>> consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
>> as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
>> faster.
>>
>> Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
>> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
>> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>>
>> Thanks for reading my little rant...
>>
> I saw the stories too. For the most part, most people get below the EPA.
> YOu have to remember not all areas of the country are flat, at a
> constant temp, or have other conditions that maximize economy.
> In Nebraska, i don't think any of my cars have really exceed the
> sticker. Usually under. My 96 s10 2.2 does about 17/23 in normal
> weather.
>
> Bob

I'm like Mark here. I generally do better than the stickers. But, I have
almost always lived in rural or suburban areas, and when I have had to
travel I was generally going the OPPOSITE way from the gridlock, so I
usually had smooth sailing. On cars rated 25-30, I did 30-37. Where I live
now I can run my cars in their most effecient ranges and manage to
consistantly run 5 or more MPG over EPA. I have a Chrysler LHS that during
the fall I was gettin 30 MPG overall with. It does have a lot to do with
driving habits. Toyotas don't seem to mind being pounded on; my GTS gets
better mileage at 70-75 than at 40MPH. The Chrysler needs to be driven
like you have an egg between your foot and the throttle to get the kind of
mileage I was getting, and does much better at 45-50 or 62MPH. At 70 you
can watch the fuel guage drop.

>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

It also depends what state mandates the gasoline formulation, IMHO. My
Highlander, here in Northern California runs low 20's on highway. In Idaho,
Washington or Oregon I run about 10% better. I probably drive a bit hard to
get best mileage but In summer I am over 17 in town and about 21 on highway
with V-6 AWD. about 23 up north
Ron

Mark wrote:
>
> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news...

You can stop there....Calling the stuff on TV at 6:30 pm
"news" is false advertising. Especially true for NBC and
CBS. At least Dan is leaving the "news" department and
working full time for the tabloid departement (60 minutes).
He was always better suited for National Enquirer style of
semi-fictionalized reporting than for honest news reporting.

Ed

I think a lot of it also has to do with traffic. Here in So. Cal I can
get 34mpg hwy in my '94 Saab 9000 cse if there is no traffic and I'm not
stop and go. If I do wind up in stop and go traffic my mileage drops to
17-20 mpg.

I've also been tracking the MPG in my '04 Pilot. In town/traffic I get
about 14-15mpg. In open road driving I can get 18-20mpg. Not bad for a
6cyl SUV IMO.

Craig

In article <1110465488.894665.125970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
markpippin@email.com says...
> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
> inflating tires properly.
>
> They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
> car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
> complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
> NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>
> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
> you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
> was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
> the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
> highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
> consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
> as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
> faster.
>
> Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>
> Thanks for reading my little rant...
>
>

That is pretty good mileage for Highlander. My wife has a 05 Highlander
Limited FWD and it never gets more than 21 mpg. It usually gets around 18 of
mix driving in Southern Orange Couty, CA. The 20 mpg was achieved during our
trip to Phoenix between Xmas and New Year 3 months ago. The information
display in that car never tells you the truth about the gas mileage
consumption. It always shows that we are getting around 22 mpg and in fact
we only get 19 from it. The speed limit is 75 mph on I-10 and people usually
drive minimum 85 mph on I-10 between LA and Phoenix. Even though there is
nothing but desert between LA and Phoenix, the road is not flat, either.

I also niticed that Toyota cars get pretty bad gas mileage during cold rainy
day. My 99 Sienna usually gets 19 in mixed driving, but it only gets 16 or
less in cold rainy days.

"ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gq_Xd.16202$OU1.14766@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com...
> It also depends what state mandates the gasoline formulation, IMHO. My
> Highlander, here in Northern California runs low 20's on highway. In
Idaho,
> Washington or Oregon I run about 10% better. I probably drive a bit hard
to
> get best mileage but In summer I am over 17 in town and about 21 on
highway
> with V-6 AWD. about 23 up north
> Ron
>
>

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:28:37 -0600, Rex B <rex@inoli.com> wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
>> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
>> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
>> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
>> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
>> inflating tires properly.
>>
>> They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
>> car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
>> complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
>> NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>>
>> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
>> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
>> you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
>> was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
>> the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
>> highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
>> consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
>> as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
>> faster.
>>
>> Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
>> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
>> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>>
>> Thanks for reading my little rant...
>>
>Same old story - nobody wants to take responsibility for their own
>actions. And the media is quick to ell us It's Not Your Fault - it's
>"THEM".

Yeah, kinda childish. We want to hear from people who don't even care
about us, blaming others for problems. But then, these shows are very
popular, I guess there are many people who want to be treated like
children. Now this is just a guess...

imho,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:06:51 +0000, Tony wrote:

> That is pretty good mileage for Highlander. My wife has a 05 Highlander
> Limited FWD and it never gets more than 21 mpg. It usually gets around 18 of
> mix driving in Southern Orange Couty, CA. The 20 mpg was achieved during our
> trip to Phoenix between Xmas and New Year 3 months ago. The information
> display in that car never tells you the truth about the gas mileage
> consumption. It always shows that we are getting around 22 mpg and in fact
> we only get 19 from it. The speed limit is 75 mph on I-10 and people usually
> drive minimum 85 mph on I-10 between LA and Phoenix. Even though there is
> nothing but desert between LA and Phoenix, the road is not flat, either.
>
> I also niticed that Toyota cars get pretty bad gas mileage during cold rainy
> day. My 99 Sienna usually gets 19 in mixed driving, but it only gets 16 or
> less in cold rainy days.

I noticed maybe a 10% drop in economy from summer to winter, if even that.
Of course, mine are all '80's cars...

>
> "ron" <randus3remove@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gq_Xd.16202$OU1.14766@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com...
>> It also depends what state mandates the gasoline formulation, IMHO. My
>> Highlander, here in Northern California runs low 20's on highway. In
> Idaho,
>> Washington or Oregon I run about 10% better. I probably drive a bit hard
> to
>> get best mileage but In summer I am over 17 in town and about 21 on
> highway
>> with V-6 AWD. about 23 up north
>> Ron
>>
>>

Mark wrote:
> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
> you drive conservatively and take care of your car.

Agh! You used the "A" word. Whole hypothesis falls apart in huge
crumbing mass of little bits.(oddly not unlike legos?)

The problem is that the test is outdated and has a 20mph speed
for city and a 45mph for highway, with very gentle cycles
inbetween. Manufacturers gear the cars to do well at those
exact speeds, of course, so as to satisfy their fleet/type
efficiency requirements, so you get silly data that isn't
close to reality.

All it really does is tell you a range compared to other
vehicles. A Pruis will get better mileage than all but
about a handful of vehicles, for instance. The numbers
are moot beyond that.

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EN0Yd.5234$oO4.1201@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Mark wrote:
>> Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
>> easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
>> you drive conservatively and take care of your car.
>
> Agh! You used the "A" word. Whole hypothesis falls apart in huge
> crumbing mass of little bits.(oddly not unlike legos?)
>
> The problem is that the test is outdated and has a 20mph speed
> for city and a 45mph for highway, with very gentle cycles
> inbetween. Manufacturers gear the cars to do well at those
> exact speeds, of course, so as to satisfy their fleet/type
> efficiency requirements, so you get silly data that isn't
> close to reality.
>
> All it really does is tell you a range compared to other
> vehicles. A Pruis will get better mileage than all but
> about a handful of vehicles, for instance. The numbers
> are moot beyond that.

I know with my car, once I hit 45 it'll go into OD and have the TCC kick in.
It's rated for 30 mpg on the highway and last time I took it for a trip I
got ~38 mpg. You're right though, it's more for comparison then real world
numbers.

"Mark" <markpippin@email.com> wrote in message
news:1110465488.894665.125970@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
> believe by the EPA stickers. > Come on people, if you are myopic enough to
> buy gas guzzling cars, let
> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE


Does this apply as much to hybrid-engine cars? I heard that the percentage
of difference between "real world" mileage and EPA numbers was much greater
with hybrids. For example, a Hybrid rated at 38 city, 50 highway might see
real-world numbers consistently in the 36 range, while a traditional
gas-engine vehicle that also sees real-world numbers consistently in the 36
range would be more likely to be rated at, say, 33 city and 42 highway.

If this is the actual case, does it mean that the mileage of hybrid-engine
cars drops off more sharply under non-ideal conditions than that of
conventional-engined vehicles?

"Phillip Schmid" <schmste8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39bu7uF5s2qlrU1@individual.net...
>
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:EN0Yd.5234$oO4.1201@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>

>
> I know with my car, once I hit 45 it'll go into OD and have the TCC kick
> in. It's rated for 30 mpg on the highway and last time I took it for a
> trip I got ~38 mpg.

What year/make/model is it?

"Ernie Sty" <fake_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S6idncOEidVcSq3fRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
>
> "Mark" <markpippin@email.com> wrote in message
> news:1110465488.894665.125970@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>>I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
>> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
>> believe by the EPA stickers. > Come on people, if you are myopic enough
>> to buy gas guzzling cars, let
>> the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
>> complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>
>
> Does this apply as much to hybrid-engine cars? I heard that the
> percentage of difference between "real world" mileage and EPA numbers was
> much greater with hybrids. For example, a Hybrid rated at 38 city, 50
> highway might see real-world numbers consistently in the 36 range, while a
> traditional gas-engine vehicle that also sees real-world numbers
> consistently in the 36 range would be more likely to be rated at, say, 33
> city and 42 highway.
>
> If this is the actual case, does it mean that the mileage of hybrid-engine
> cars drops off more sharply under non-ideal conditions than that of
> conventional-engined vehicles?

From what I've read about hybrid drive vehicles and heard from friends in
the automotive industry, fuel economy in hybrid vehicles tend to be better
in an urban stop-and-go environment than on the highway. This is because
the internal combustion (IC) engine is less likely to be running at lower
vehicle speeds and the regenerative braking system returns some power back
to the batteries versus on the highway, where the higher speeds mean the IC
engine is running and there is less regenerative braking.

Having heard from people who say that they get as good as or better fuel
economy than the EPA estimates and people who say that their mileage is much
worse, I suspect that driving style and environmental conditions has a
greater effect on fuel economy on a hybrid than in a conventional
drivetrain.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

"Mark" <markpippin@email.com> wrote in message
news:1110465488.894665.125970@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
> about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
> believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
> and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
> mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
> inflating tires properly.

I like people who put 22's on their tahoe and complain about gas mileage.

"Ernie Sty" <fake_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QZKdndOD-bmtRa3fRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>
>
> What year/make/model is it?

It's a 93 Grand Prix with the 3.1 V6. My dad had a 92 Lumina with the 3.1
also and got about the same gas mileage.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:38:39 -0600, "Ray O"
<rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOT.com> wrote:

><snip>
>
>Having heard from people who say that they get as good as or better fuel
>economy than the EPA estimates and people who say that their mileage is much
>worse, I suspect that driving style and environmental conditions has a
>greater effect on fuel economy on a hybrid than in a conventional
>drivetrain.

Like all the posters are saying: Driving style effects fuel
consumption. My father consistently gets 10-20% better than EPA
regardless of the vehicle he's driving HOWEVER. He uses a block
heater 60% of the year so he's never starting a cold car, His brakes
are usually original when he trades a vehicle in near 100K & he will
often shut the engine off and coast when on hills & approaching
traffic lights or traffic jams. (This might play a part) His tires
also last close to 60 K as well.

Some Hybrids (I won't mention Toyota Prius here) seem from what
everyone says, do consistently worse than rated. Others (I won't say
Honda Accord) do pretty close to their rating.

My 1995 Olds 98 Regency Elite will hit High 30's driven sensibly in
the summer. Parked outside in & driven in the city during the winter
I'll hit high teens.

Vehicles are societies tools of consistent consumption. If we lived
in a non-capitalist, non-consumption based society fuel economy
wouldn't matter b/c we'd all be walking through the snow or waiting
and taking subways/trains everywhere. However our society is based on
consumption. Oil is high to justify drilling in Alaska and processing
the Trillion Barrels of in Alberta before people move on to another
fuel source, so lets quit worrying about EPA ratings.

As my brother said after a serious car accident. "Fuel is a hell of a
lot cheaper than hospitals, buy a safe car".

EPA is just a rough guideline. I wouldn't base my purchasing decision
on what a group of overpaid under worked government officials say to
the public , After all what are they driving? ;-)

On 10 Mar 2005 06:38:08 -0800, "Mark" <markpippin@email.com> wrote:

>I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
>about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
>believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
>and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
>mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
>inflating tires properly.
>
>They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
>car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
>complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
>NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>
>Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
>easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
>you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
>was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
>the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
>highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
>consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
>as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
>faster.
>
>Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
>the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
>complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>
>Thanks for reading my little rant...

If you want to get decent milage the US needs to start getting
low-sulphur diesel and SOON, so that the newer generatiosn of Diesel
engines can be brought over.

a VW lupo diesel will do 60mpg, an audi A8, with a 4l twin-turbo
diesel can manage 40mpg on the highway (and thats a big heavy car!)

I also agree that driving style has a lot to do with it - I did a run
from atlanta to sailsbury, NC on sunday - there and back averaged
30mpg, on a vehicle with an EPA highway rating of 26, and the return
journey had 2700lb of lexan in it. That was from an 87 dodge 3l, with
the check engine light on, imagine what i'll get when i get the engine
working graet (i got it about 4 weeks ago)

Basically comes down to 3 things

1) driving style - most americans, it seems, have little knowledge of
smooth driving, or wide spacial awareness. they don't anticipate or
aggregate. The significantly lower standard of driving required to
pass the test in the US compaired with the UK, also means that drivers
look for bigger vehicles for safety.

2) Mechanicals - American engines are not the best out-putters of
power. Tend to be big engines, that are then tuned for low-end torque
and made quiet. The abundance of automatic boxes also makes it less
efficient. Side impact bars, safety cages etc. are also often missing
in the smaller cars, meaning that peolpe look to the big heavy vehcles
for safety.

3) legislative. Car tags, at least here in georgia, are priced on
vehicle value, in the UK, they're emissiosn dependant. Smaller engined
cars cost less. the lower safety requirements, and the incrased
reliance on active, secondary devices, such as airbags, and away from
better stronger chassis, or better handling (admittedly, the last is
hard to legislate) . Silly stuff too, such as Arnie proposing the
Pruis be allowed to use carpool lanes, even when only 1 person in it
9the prius's 1.5l engine, is the same size as that in my civic, and my
civic is a HELL of a lot lighter with no batteries or motors to
feed/carry - so can i run my civic in the california carpool lanes on
my own too, eh? nope, didn't think so.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:44:57 -0500, K`Tetch <no.email@here.for.you>
wrote:
><snip>
>
>If you want to get decent milage the US needs to start getting
>low-sulphur diesel and SOON, so that the newer generatiosn of Diesel
>engines can be brought over.
>
>a VW lupo diesel will do 60mpg, an audi A8, with a 4l twin-turbo
>diesel can manage 40mpg on the highway (and thats a big heavy car!)
Partially agree. Would you want to be broad sided by an American
Car/SUV/Truck in a Lupo? Hell even being in a Polo would be fatal.

I love the A8, Mid sized Bimmers & the new GTi Diesels. Wonderful fun
cars to drive, cheap on fuel etc. I agree on the Diesel. We should
have Low Sulphur available for those of us that want it esp since we
grow so much Rapeseed/Canola over here.
>
><snip>
>
>Basically comes down to 3 things
>
>1) driving style - most americans, it seems, have little knowledge of
>smooth driving, or wide spacial awareness. they don't anticipate or
>aggregate. The significantly lower standard of driving required to
>pass the test in the US compaired with the UK, also means that drivers
>look for bigger vehicles for safety.
Agreed. Though poorly designed roads/motorways have as big an impact
on smooth driving. One "law abiding" idiot switching lanes in front of
faster moving traffic & you've got a 3 hour tie up (assuming that they
don't cause a wreck)
>
>2) Mechanicals - American engines are not the best out-putters of
>power. Tend to be big engines, that are then tuned for low-end torque
>and made quiet. The abundance of automatic boxes also makes it less
>efficient. Side impact bars, safety cages etc. are also often missing
>in the smaller cars, meaning that peolpe look to the big heavy vehcles
>for safety.
Big slow revving engines last longer & can use as little or even less
than a smaller engine working harder (compare the V8 Lincoln's to a
Turbo Saab to see what I mean). Auto Boxes can be more efficient than
they have been (for eg, the new twin clutch trannies in the Ferrari's
and Porsche) Fast, efficient and potentially much more reliable.
>
>3) legislative. Car tags, at least here in georgia, are priced on
>vehicle value, in the UK, they're emissiosn dependant. Smaller engined
>cars cost less. the lower safety requirements, and the incrased
>reliance on active, secondary devices, such as airbags, and away from
>better stronger chassis, or better handling (admittedly, the last is
>hard to legislate) .
It's hard to swerve out of the way of someone running a stop sign or a
red light. I like the UK idea of standard bumper heights on trucks
and under-runners (or whatever they're called) on the sides of larger
trucks (Lorry's/Juggernaughts).

Also most North American vehicles are designed for our climate.
Europe and Asia is much more temperate and thus the vehicles don't
need quite the same HVAC system we do over here.

Legislatively I think mandating increases in fuel economy would be a
good starting point. Imagine a Corvette with a Hybrid V8. 500 HP gas
plus 100HP electric with massive torque on demand then 2 cylinders
running in stop and go. Or a 4X4 SUV with Electric rear drive train
for acceleration and generation. There's no reason we can't hit mid
to high 40's on gasoline with the size and shape of vehicles we have
now. Add to it an electric battery pack chargeable from home & you're
off to the races.

> Silly stuff too, such as Arnie proposing the
>Pruis be allowed to use carpool lanes, even when only 1 person in it
>9the prius's 1.5l engine, is the same size as that in my civic, and my
>civic is a HELL of a lot lighter with no batteries or motors to
>feed/carry - so can i run my civic in the california carpool lanes on
>my own too, eh? nope, didn't think so.

Not touching the California thing. I have no clue what the objectives
are down there.


Please explain to me why there is this notion
that economy = deprivation

is a 6000 square foot Solar home more wasteful than a 1200 square foot
traditional home? I believe homes are where we should be focusing the
economy on, (greater gains fewer $). end of my rant

Hachiroku, TOPPOSTING!!!!

http://www.greasecar.com/




On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:44:57 -0500, K`Tetch wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2005 06:38:08 -0800, "Mark" <markpippin@email.com> wrote:
>
>>I saw a very whiny story on NBC news the other night - complaining
>>about cars not getting nearly the mileage their owners were led to
>>believe by the EPA stickers. This always happens when gas prices go up
>>and the media is complicit in the "blame the EPA for my lousy mileage"
>>mentality. There was NO MENTION of driving habits, maintenance or
>>inflating tires properly.
>>
>>They even had the nerve to criticize the EPA for neglecting to let the
>>car idle in traffic for a while during the test. DUH... should you
>>complain that your mileage won't be quite up to the estimate if you are
>>NOT MOVING while your engine is running?
>>
>>Assuming the tests are fair across manufacturers, I believe it's pretty
>>easy to achieve the EPA numbers (at a minimum) in everyday driving if
>>you drive conservatively and take care of your car. My 4-cyl 87 Camry
>>was rated at 25/31 and I consistently made 27 or 28 mpg around town for
>>the 15-1/2 years I owned it. It easily did 40 mpg or better on the
>>highway at 65. My current 03 Matrix is also rated at 25/31 and I am
>>consistently hitting 30 mpg in mostly suburban driving. It's not quite
>>as good as the Camry on the highway (35 or so) but I also drive it
>>faster.
>>
>>Come on people, if you are myopic enough to buy gas guzzling cars, let
>>the tires go flat and drive with a lead foot, then at least stop
>>complaining... and please.... LEARN HOW TO DRIVE
>>
>>Thanks for reading my little rant...
>
> If you want to get decent milage the US needs to start getting
> low-sulphur diesel and SOON, so that the newer generatiosn of Diesel
> engines can be brought over.
>
> a VW lupo diesel will do 60mpg, an audi A8, with a 4l twin-turbo
> diesel can manage 40mpg on the highway (and thats a big heavy car!)
>
> I also agree that driving style has a lot to do with it - I did a run
> from atlanta to sailsbury, NC on sunday - there and back averaged
> 30mpg, on a vehicle with an EPA highway rating of 26, and the return
> journey had 2700lb of lexan in it. That was from an 87 dodge 3l, with
> the check engine light on, imagine what i'll get when i get the engine
> working graet (i got it about 4 weeks ago)
>
> Basically comes down to 3 things
>
> 1) driving style - most americans, it seems, have little knowledge of
> smooth driving, or wide spacial awareness. they don't anticipate or
> aggregate. The significantly lower standard of driving required to
> pass the test in the US compaired with the UK, also means that drivers
> look for bigger vehicles for safety.
>
> 2) Mechanicals - American engines are not the best out-putters of
> power. Tend to be big engines, that are then tuned for low-end torque
> and made quiet. The abundance of automatic boxes also makes it less
> efficient. Side impact bars, safety cages etc. are also often missing
> in the smaller cars, meaning that peolpe look to the big heavy vehcles
> for safety.
>
> 3) legislative. Car tags, at least here in georgia, are priced on
> vehicle value, in the UK, they're emissiosn dependant. Smaller engined
> cars cost less. the lower safety requirements, and the incrased
> reliance on active, secondary devices, such as airbags, and away from
> better stronger chassis, or better handling (admittedly, the last is
> hard to legislate) . Silly stuff too, such as Arnie proposing the
> Pruis be allowed to use carpool lanes, even when only 1 person in it
> 9the prius's 1.5l engine, is the same size as that in my civic, and my
> civic is a HELL of a lot lighter with no batteries or motors to
> feed/carry - so can i run my civic in the california carpool lanes on
> my own too, eh? nope, didn't think so.

SNIP
> Like all the posters are saying: Driving style effects fuel
> consumption. My father consistently gets 10-20% better than EPA
> regardless of the vehicle he's driving HOWEVER. He uses a block
> heater 60% of the year so he's never starting a cold car, His brakes

Spending on electricity what he saves on gas? Tell him to use a good quality
synthetic oil instead. He won't need a block heater anymore.

SNIP

> EPA is just a rough guideline. I wouldn't base my purchasing decision
> on what a group of overpaid under worked government officials say to
SNIP

Don't put all gov. emplyees in the same basket. I work for a Crown Corp.
here in Canada and I am NOT under worked. My salary is adequate, at best.

JP

I agree, I almost always do at least as well as the EPA estimates,and often
do better. The exception is winter driving. there is a 5-6MPG average
difference between me and the wife in the same cars...she drives a lot more
aggressively than I do. She goes through brakes faster too!!!

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:50:24 GMT, "Bassplayer12"
<perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>SNIP
>> Like all the posters are saying: Driving style effects fuel
>> consumption. My father consistently gets 10-20% better than EPA
>> regardless of the vehicle he's driving HOWEVER. He uses a block
>> heater 60% of the year so he's never starting a cold car, His brakes
>
>Spending on electricity what he saves on gas? Tell him to use a good quality
>synthetic oil instead. He won't need a block heater anymore.

Synthetic oil? he'd never! (costs too much ;-) Plus he only plugs
in the block heater for an hour before he leaves. Trust me, he's so
anal he's already done a cost benefit analysis and decided on the
block heater for his diesel VW. 8 years old only 60K
>
>SNIP
>
>> EPA is just a rough guideline. I wouldn't base my purchasing decision
>> on what a group of overpaid under worked government officials say to
>SNIP
>
>Don't put all gov. emplyees in the same basket. I work for a Crown Corp.
>here in Canada and I am NOT under worked. My salary is adequate, at best.
>
>JP
>
No offence intended, used to work with a fire fighter who worked days
when he was on night shift b/c he was bored. At $60+ K a year his
salary was more than adequate for what he did there.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:50:24 +0000, Bassplayer12 wrote:

> SNIP
>> Like all the posters are saying: Driving style effects fuel
>> consumption. My father consistently gets 10-20% better than EPA
>> regardless of the vehicle he's driving HOWEVER. He uses a block
>> heater 60% of the year so he's never starting a cold car, His brakes
>
> Spending on electricity what he saves on gas? Tell him to use a good quality
> synthetic oil instead. He won't need a block heater anymore.
>
> SNIP
>
>> EPA is just a rough guideline. I wouldn't base my purchasing decision
>> on what a group of overpaid under worked government officials say to
> SNIP
>
> Don't put all gov. emplyees in the same basket. I work for a Crown Corp.
> here in Canada and I am NOT under worked. My salary is adequate, at best.
>
> JP

Bass player, eh? What ya got? What do you play?

I have a Dan AArmstrong, clear Lucite that weighs a ton (an ORIGINAL,
probably a prototype from what I'm told!); a Fender P-Bass Lyte that
DOESN'T weigh a ton, a Carvin ProBass 300 with my choice of 1970's Ampeg
4-12 SVT cabinet or an '80's Fender Bassman 2-15 cabinet. All depends on
the sound and how much weight I want to hual! (The SVT bottom weighs over
100LBS!!!)